What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4720070 about?

The tribunal order states: Timothy Bell As Trustee For Kerehi Trust is granted possession of the premises

How much money was awarded in case 4720070?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4720070?

The primary dispute was 14-day notice.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4720070?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9826025-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4720070 about?

The tribunal order states: Timothy Bell As Trustee For Kerehi Trust is granted possession of the premises

How much money was awarded in case 4720070?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4720070?

The primary dispute was 14-day notice.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4720070?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9826025-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4720070 — 14-day notice

Order

Timothy Bell As Trustee For Kerehi Trust is granted possession of the premises at [Tenancy address suppressed] at 11.59 am on Friday 26 January 2024.

Reasons

Both parties attended this remote teleconference hearing on 10 January 2024.
The applicant seeks possession of the premises in accordance with s.65(1) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”). Background Facts
The premises are at [Tenancy address suppressed] (“the premises”).
Timothy Bell is the sole trustee of the Kerehi Trust, a trust formed by Trust Deed (“the Trust”). The settlor of the Trust was the late William Ebdale. William Ebdale died on 2 March 2023.
[The occupant/s] is [redacted] and is the current occupant of the premises (“the occupant”). [The occupant/s] is not a beneficiary of the Trust.
The Trust is the registered owner of the premises. A copy of the record of title has been provided in evidence.
The occupant has continued to live at the premises since the death of William Ebdale and remains in occupation as of the date of this hearing. Negotiations have taken place between the parties personally and through their legal representatives leading up to these proceedings, in an attempt to resolve the issue of occupation. Negotiations have not proven successful.
By letter dated 30 May 2023, the owner’s legal representative advised the occupant that she would need to pay the market rent for the premises and enter into a tenancy agreement within 14 days of the letter, failing which she would need to vacate the premise by 27 June 2023 to allow the premises to be tenanted. The occupant did not agree with the amount required by the owner. The occupant has paid a reduced sum to the owner since that date to cover costs. There was accordingly no agreement between the parties and the notice to vacate has taken effect.
The occupant’s lawyer advised the Trust of her intention to file proceedings under the Property (Relationships) Act 1976 (“PRA”), the Law Reform (Testamentary Promises) Act and 1949 and the Family Protection Act 1955 in support of her claim to the premises amongst other issues.
The parties accept that the occupant has now filed proceedings under the PRA. The owner was served with a copy of those proceedings just prior to the Christmas vacation. Law
Section 65 RTA provides; 65 Eviction of squatters (1) Where, on the application of any person entitled to possession of any residential premises, the Tribunal is satisfied that any other person is in possession of the premises as a squatter or trespasser, or otherwise than pursuant to any right of occupation granted to that person by any person having lawful authority to grant that right to that other person, the Tribunal shall make a possession order granting possession of the premises to the applicant. (2) Nothing in subsection (1) shall limit or affect the provisions of the Trespass Act 1980, or any other remedy that may be available to the person lawfully entitled to possession of the premises. (3) To avoid doubt, the Tribunal has jurisdiction under this section even though the premises are not subject to a tenancy agreement.
Section 65 RTA was considered by the High Court in Sergeant v Nigro and Tapsell (2019) NZHC 328. The Court held that there are three conditions which must be met before an order can be made: (a) The premises the subject of the application are residential premises. (b) The applicant for possession is entitled to possession of those premises. (c) Another person or persons are in possession as squatters, trespassers, or otherwise than pursuant to any right of occupation granted by a person having lawful authority to do so.
The High Court went on to hold that once the three pre-conditions are established, it is then mandatory for the Tribunal to make the order. It is not open to the Tribunal to consider the facts or claims in another court when deciding if the occupant is entitled to possession.

Are the premises Residential Premises?

The parties accepted that the premises are residential premises, and the matter does not require further consideration.

Is the owner entitled to possession?

The evidence provided by the owner was not opposed by the occupant and I have no difficulty finding that the Trust is entitled to possession. Does the occupant have a right to occupation provided by any party with lawful authority to do so?
The evidence provided, shows that any lawful right to occupy the premises that the occupant may previously have had, if any, has been revoked by the owner by way of the letter dated 30 May 2023.
The occupant’s claim is that she has an entitlement to reside at the premises as a result of her claim under the PRA.
Section 65 RTA does not refer to an “entitlement”. The third limb of the test relates solely to having a right of occupation. The concepts are different. The occupant may or may not have an entitlement. The evidence does not however disclose that she has any lawful authority to reside at the premises.
The High Court has made it clear that the Tribunal cannot evaluate the merits of any claim in another court in determining whether a party has a right to possession. The Tribunal simply has no jurisdiction to allow any consideration of other (undetermined) claims. See Sergeant v Nigro and Tapsell (supra).
The Trust is the only party with lawful authority to grant a right of occupation and any right of occupation previously held by the occupant has been revoked.
As the occupant has no lawful right to occupy the premises, all elements of s.65 RTA have been satisfied and a possession order is granted.
I have delayed possession to the Trust for 14 days from the date of this order to give the respondent a reasonable opportunity to shift and remove her possessions from the premises.
The occupant has applied for name suppression. Having considered the interests of the parties and the public interest, I am of the view that this is essentially a related party matter and that there is no public interest in the occupant’s name being published. The occupant’s name and details are accordingly suppressed.

Order

Timothy Bell As Trustee For Kerehi Trust is granted possession of the premises at [Tenancy address suppressed] at 11.59 am on Friday 26 January 2024.

Reasons

Both parties attended this remote teleconference hearing on 10 January 2024.
The applicant seeks possession of the premises in accordance with s.65(1) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”). Background Facts
The premises are at [Tenancy address suppressed] (“the premises”).
Timothy Bell is the sole trustee of the Kerehi Trust, a trust formed by Trust Deed (“the Trust”). The settlor of the Trust was the late William Ebdale. William Ebdale died on 2 March 2023.
[The occupant/s] is [redacted] and is the current occupant of the premises (“the occupant”). [The occupant/s] is not a beneficiary of the Trust.
The Trust is the registered owner of the premises. A copy of the record of title has been provided in evidence.
The occupant has continued to live at the premises since the death of William Ebdale and remains in occupation as of the date of this hearing. Negotiations have taken place between the parties personally and through their legal representatives leading up to these proceedings, in an attempt to resolve the issue of occupation. Negotiations have not proven successful.
By letter dated 30 May 2023, the owner’s legal representative advised the occupant that she would need to pay the market rent for the premises and enter into a tenancy agreement within 14 days of the letter, failing which she would need to vacate the premise by 27 June 2023 to allow the premises to be tenanted. The occupant did not agree with the amount required by the owner. The occupant has paid a reduced sum to the owner since that date to cover costs. There was accordingly no agreement between the parties and the notice to vacate has taken effect.
The occupant’s lawyer advised the Trust of her intention to file proceedings under the Property (Relationships) Act 1976 (“PRA”), the Law Reform (Testamentary Promises) Act and 1949 and the Family Protection Act 1955 in support of her claim to the premises amongst other issues.
The parties accept that the occupant has now filed proceedings under the PRA. The owner was served with a copy of those proceedings just prior to the Christmas vacation. Law
Section 65 RTA provides; 65 Eviction of squatters (1) Where, on the application of any person entitled to possession of any residential premises, the Tribunal is satisfied that any other person is in possession of the premises as a squatter or trespasser, or otherwise than pursuant to any right of occupation granted to that person by any person having lawful authority to grant that right to that other person, the Tribunal shall make a possession order granting possession of the premises to the applicant. (2) Nothing in subsection (1) shall limit or affect the provisions of the Trespass Act 1980, or any other remedy that may be available to the person lawfully entitled to possession of the premises. (3) To avoid doubt, the Tribunal has jurisdiction under this section even though the premises are not subject to a tenancy agreement.
Section 65 RTA was considered by the High Court in Sergeant v Nigro and Tapsell (2019) NZHC 328. The Court held that there are three conditions which must be met before an order can be made: (a) The premises the subject of the application are residential premises. (b) The applicant for possession is entitled to possession of those premises. (c) Another person or persons are in possession as squatters, trespassers, or otherwise than pursuant to any right of occupation granted by a person having lawful authority to do so.
The High Court went on to hold that once the three pre-conditions are established, it is then mandatory for the Tribunal to make the order. It is not open to the Tribunal to consider the facts or claims in another court when deciding if the occupant is entitled to possession.

Are the premises Residential Premises?

The parties accepted that the premises are residential premises, and the matter does not require further consideration.

Is the owner entitled to possession?

The evidence provided by the owner was not opposed by the occupant and I have no difficulty finding that the Trust is entitled to possession. Does the occupant have a right to occupation provided by any party with lawful authority to do so?
The evidence provided, shows that any lawful right to occupy the premises that the occupant may previously have had, if any, has been revoked by the owner by way of the letter dated 30 May 2023.
The occupant’s claim is that she has an entitlement to reside at the premises as a result of her claim under the PRA.
Section 65 RTA does not refer to an “entitlement”. The third limb of the test relates solely to having a right of occupation. The concepts are different. The occupant may or may not have an entitlement. The evidence does not however disclose that she has any lawful authority to reside at the premises.
The High Court has made it clear that the Tribunal cannot evaluate the merits of any claim in another court in determining whether a party has a right to possession. The Tribunal simply has no jurisdiction to allow any consideration of other (undetermined) claims. See Sergeant v Nigro and Tapsell (supra).
The Trust is the only party with lawful authority to grant a right of occupation and any right of occupation previously held by the occupant has been revoked.
As the occupant has no lawful right to occupy the premises, all elements of s.65 RTA have been satisfied and a possession order is granted.
I have delayed possession to the Trust for 14 days from the date of this order to give the respondent a reasonable opportunity to shift and remove her possessions from the premises.
The occupant has applied for name suppression. Having considered the interests of the parties and the public interest, I am of the view that this is essentially a related party matter and that there is no public interest in the occupant’s name being published. The occupant’s name and details are accordingly suppressed.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4720070 — 14-day notice

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4720070 — 14-day notice

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Are the premises Residential Premises?

Is the owner entitled to possession?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Are the premises Residential Premises?

Is the owner entitled to possession?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions